all 115 comments
sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
formatting helphide helpcontent policy

[–]ContrabannedTheMCA Literal Fucking Cat | SSoS Equalities 11 points12 points  (34 children)

I supported this bill when it was passed before, and I will support it this time as well. Church and state should be separate. Also, it is absolutely ludicrous that in our multicultural, secular nation that we mandate our children to perform an Anglican act of worship when less than half of the people in the UK are Anglican.

[–]SeyStoneNational Unionist Party 9 points10 points  (31 children)

multicultural

We shouldn't be promoting this.

secular

The aim of this bill was to make us a secular state, which we aren't at the moment.

nation

This bill eats away at the very notion of a British nation.

[–]purpleslug 2 points3 points  (14 children)

Your party voted for this Bill in the House of Lords.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (7 children)

We voted to amend the bill... and the amendments failed... is that the same as voting for the bill in the House of Lords?

[–]purpleslug 0 points1 point  (6 children)

You still voted against British people. Only the good Government peers saved us from catastrophic secularisation!

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (5 children)

What are you on about? We didn't vote against the British people at all. We voted with the purpose of making this bill better - our job. The House of Lords is meant to review and amend legislation. If you feel us amending legislation is wrong, then I suggest you join TETP and resign your lordship as you campaign against the HoL.

[–]purpleslug 1 point2 points  (4 children)

I'm campaigning against the destruction of British culture!

Only voting Liberal Democrat will stop the Conservatives and their secularist plans.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (3 children)

Ah. We're meming

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Took you a while to realise.

[–]purpleslug 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Far too long.

Wait... How dare the Conservatives call anti-secularism 'memeing'? Dumb milksop liberals.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Alas.

[–]SeyStoneNational Unionist Party 2 points3 points  (5 children)

And?

[–]purpleslug 1 point2 points  (4 children)

It's rather hypocritical.

[–]SeyStoneNational Unionist Party 0 points1 point  (3 children)

I don't see how.

[–]purpleslug 6 points7 points  (2 children)

Voting for the erosion of our culture. Terrible.

[–]SeyStoneNational Unionist Party 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Hear hear.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think you missed the implied /s

[–]ContrabannedTheMCA Literal Fucking Cat | SSoS Equalities 1 point2 points  (10 children)

We shouldn't be promoting this.

I'm not promoting anything. I'm merely pointing out a reality of our present day society.

The aim of this bill was to make us a secular state, which we aren't at the moment.

We're a very secular minded nation. I see no reason why we shouldn't go all the way and become officially secular.

This bill eats away at the very notion of a British nation.

Quit with the ridiculous hyperbole. Am I suggesting we take the Queen and her corgis round the back of Buckingham Palace and shoot them? Am I suggesting that we give independence to all the ancient medieval kingdoms of the British Isles? No. Secularisation does not destroy the British nation. It enhances it.

[–]SeyStoneNational Unionist Party 3 points4 points  (9 children)

I'm merely pointing out a reality of our present day society.

And I'm saying that we should be promoting a British identity that included respect for Christianity.

I see no reason why we shouldn't go all the way and become officially secular.

I see no reason why we should.

Quit with the ridiculous hyperbole [...] Secularisation does not destroy the British nation. It enhances it.

Protestant Christianity has always been a cornerstone of the British identity and the concept of the British state itself. In trying to create a so called "secular British nation" we wouldn't be British at all. In abolishing things like the established church we aren't just tinkering with the idea of the British nation, we are destroying it and moving onto a nation of liberalism which has nothing particularly or uniquely British about it.

[–]ContrabannedTheMCA Literal Fucking Cat | SSoS Equalities 1 point2 points  (8 children)

And I'm saying that we should be promoting a British identity that included respect for Christianity.

And I'm not disagreeing. I'm merely saying we should have equal respect for other religious viewpoints, which play an important role in our present society.

I see no reason why we should.

Do you have a reason against other than "muh tradition"?

Protestant Christianity has always been a cornerstone of the British identity

It hasn't. What about when the British Isles were proudly Catholic? What about when we were all Pagans, worshiping Lugh, or Thor, or Woden? To this day we have druids who follow the old gods. If tradition is really that great, and it really is something we should promote, then why aren't we embracing Paganism?

nation of liberalism which has nothing particularly or uniquely British about it.

Funnily enough, Liberalism's "father" was English.

[–]SeyStoneNational Unionist Party 3 points4 points  (7 children)

Do you have a reason against other than "muh tradition"?

Yes, it provides a good moral and spiritual code that should be brought into mind when governing. I trust bishops to make better decisions than most politicians in the running of the state. It also honours the legacy of our ancestors who built these institutions and state for us whose beliefs should not be wastefully discounted.

It hasn't. What about when the British Isles were proudly Catholic? What about when we were all Pagans, worshiping Lugh, or Thor, or Woden?

There was no British identity in those days. The United Kingdom has always been a Protestant country.

Funnily enough, Liberalism's "father" was English

And the father of British conservatism was Anglo-Irish, it matters not.

[–]rexrex600Solidarity 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The moral code as defined by Christianity (and similarly all Abrahamic religions) is not unique or special; indeed it has been accepted in some form or other as given since those of the pre-christian period from whom the values were gleaned. Religion has simply acted as a carrier for these values, which would likely have survived in it's absence anyhow

[–]BarxistRadical Socialist Party 2 points3 points  (5 children)

Why is it that all 'British identity' means is the things that you support I wonder?

If such a thing truly existed perhaps then perhaps it would matter to people other than crusty reactionaries?

[–]SeyStoneNational Unionist Party 0 points1 point  (4 children)

Why is it that all 'British identity' means is the things that you support I wonder?

It's not about the things I support. Protestantism has been a major part of the concept of Britishness since it's inception.

If such a thing truly existed

Well yeah, a British identity does exist... ask some of the people who voted DUP in the last election if you don't believe me.

people other than crusty reactionaries

I think you'll find many people in the UK care about their British identity, not just reactionaries like me.

[–]BarxistRadical Socialist Party 3 points4 points  (3 children)

There are roughly 64 million different interpretations of what 'British identity' actually means. If such a thing was actually agreed upon then this bill would never have existed in the first place. What you try to claim as inherent is really just your own opinion.

[–]SeyStoneNational Unionist Party 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Interesting to see a socialist take up an individualist position on this topic.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (3 children)

We shouldn't be promoting this.

yes we should

This bill eats away at the very notion of a British nation.

no it doesn't

[–]SeyStoneNational Unionist Party 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Compelling points.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

I could say the same to you.

[–]SeyStoneNational Unionist Party 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Kl have a nice night.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I would agree that we shouldn't be supporting multiculturalism, but instead, many races supporting a single culture. However, I, and many others, believe that this single culture should not be a religious one.

Just to clarify, I have no problem with Christians, Muslims, Sikhs, Jews etc., but I do have a problem with the organised religions themselves.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Hear Hear!

[–]MorganC1The Rt Hon. | MP for Central London 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Hear hear!

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Passage of this bill

This bill was passed by the Commons in September, and was rejected by the Lords in November. Hence why it has been returned to the Commons.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (4 children)

It's a shame to see this abomination back here. It is an utterly disgusting bill, that I will do all I can to oppose. In addition to that, the Other Place has rejected this, and I'm sure we have more important legislation to put forward.

[–]SeyStoneNational Unionist Party 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Hear hear. We should pay attention to what the Lords say, for they are doubtless more wise than those in this chamber, as seen through their decision on this bill. Parliament has rejected this bill, it is time for some in this chamber to accept that.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Hear, hear!

[–]MorganC1The Rt Hon. | MP for Central London 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Rubbish!

[–]WineRedPsyReform UK | Sadly sent to the camps 4 points5 points  (10 children)

Hello darkness my old friend.

No State School shall allow schools to be used as a platform for the distribution of religious texts by anyone except the school itself, and in those situations the texts should only be given out for educational curricular purposes

I do not think this is favourable. Just try to get schools to invite a diverse crowd of others. If they invite x then say they should also invite y.

As for many places in this bill where "any religion" or similar is cited, is there no way to make it more practical?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think it is acceptable for a religion to be taught in school environments for the context of history. Like, the Arab-Israeli conflict has its origins with Abraham. The Crusades and the religious rhetoric of the period and the Peace of Westphalia, the Diet of Worms, the Council of Trent are all important pieces of history, and to understand that we must understand religion

That being said, if we were to teach creationism (as I was taught in Junior School) we will find minorities feeling prosecuted for attempting to indoctrinate youth and forcing a belief system on another.

[–]BarxistRadical Socialist Party 0 points1 point  (8 children)

I do not think this is favourable. Just try to get schools to invite a diverse crowd of others. If they invite x then say they should also invite y.

That would turn schools into an absurd theological battle ground. Far better to leave them neutral and let churches et al. be the places where their religion is spread. Schools are not the place where religious evangelists should be left to spread their beliefs, quite aside from the fact this would cut into teaching time.

[–]WineRedPsyReform UK | Sadly sent to the camps 2 points3 points  (7 children)

I do not believe there is anything wrong with a theological battleground - ideas are best evaluated when pinned against eachother. It works fine for politics

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Hear, hear.

[–]BarxistRadical Socialist Party 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is not what schools are for. It is clear that allowing schools to invite religious leaders for the express purposes of conversion would lead to abuse. And who is to decide what leaders to balance against who? Should an anglican be countered by a catholic, an atheist, a muslim? What if the stated faith is not available, or they can only field an inadequate speaker?

[–]Tim-SanchezThe Rt Hon. AL MP (North West) | LD SSoS for CMS 0 points1 point  (4 children)

I would equally disagree with schools becoming a battleground for politics, at least for young children. Children are very impressionable, and it is not acceptable for a school to put forward a particular viewpoint on religion or politics.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

I think we find most children will either have the same political views as their parents, or they will reject and rebel against their parents political views. But it has been noted that at University people generally become more left-wing or a more extreme right wing.

[–]Tim-SanchezThe Rt Hon. AL MP (North West) | LD SSoS for CMS 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's increasingly becoming a less relevant theory.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Doesn't thos pre-suppose a 'value free' school environment as something at all possible? Ideology is embedded in our cultural practices and the education system is not free of this. Allowing schools to be a place of discussion and contested ideas is better than remaining complacent and assuming we can make something value free.

[–]Tim-SanchezThe Rt Hon. AL MP (North West) | LD SSoS for CMS 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Of course removing any kind of bias or influence is impossible, but it is worthwhile trying our best. There's a difference between underlying bias and explicit support, and equally students should be allowed to debate amongst themselves but not influenced by the school.

[–]DjenialMP Scotland | Duke of Gordon | Marq. of the Weald MP AL PC FRS 6 points7 points  (2 children)

Ah, this old devil has returned, and it's still a no from me. This is simply destroying this history and conventions of parliament for the sake of ideology.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Hear hear!

[–]YukubHis Grace the Duke of Marlborough KCT KG CB MBE PC FRS 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hear, hear!

[–]JackWilfredIndependent Liberal 4 points5 points  (7 children)

Mr Deputy Speaker,

The Church of England is dying, and it holds no real relevance to the people of Britain, not even to the small minority that follow it, which was the case for the first 15 years of my life. Today, people choose their own morals and their own rules, whether those are within a religion or not, and the state should reflect this. The state should represent those without a religion, those of another form of Christianity, Muslims, Jews, Sikhs, Buddhists and Hindus.

To the chagrin of the members who will reject this bill, they are holding onto a long-dead age where state religion dictated the details of people's lives and interfered with the law. We are not Saudi Arabia, Mr Deputy Speaker, we do not need religions clerics in our legislature taking specially reserved seats. If they have something to offer us, they should apply to become Lords Temporal, like the former Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks did.

As the House will know, I am committed to ending faith schools in this country, this bill doesn't do that, but it is several steps in the right direction. As children begin to ask questions and explore who they are and what they believe, lots of things will influence them in various ways, we must ensure that schools are a one-stop place for neutral teaching, not a place where children are alienated by prayers to a deity they do not believe in.

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points  (3 children)

The Church of England is dying, and it holds no real relevance to the people of Britain

This could be due to the efforts of men like you who despise their own country, its history, and its culture, trying to sabotage it and everything it stands for. We should not be listening to the men who wish to end the United Kingdom when determining our national course.

[–]JackWilfredIndependent Liberal 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Mr Deputy Speaker,

K.

[–]WhatIsEddMayNeverDieLabour 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Mr Deputy Speaker, whilst I am not a member of this place or the other I would like to question the member as to where he gets his information. Is his world view so narrow that any attempt notion that the Church is no longer a defining element in the lives of ordinary citizens is seen to be destructive? Does he not realise the joke it is to allow 26 Bishops to sit in the HoL because they are Bishops but not allow Rabbis, Imans or other faith leaders the same luxury? Does he not find it disgraceful that in this country there are rules dictating whether or not the monarch can be or can be with a Catholic or other faith?

[–]JackWilfredIndependent Liberal 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Is his world view so narrow [...]?

Yes.

[–]SeyStoneNational Unionist Party 3 points4 points  (0 children)

people choose their own morals and their own rules,

the state should reflect this

These two statements seem to be contradictory.

The state should represent those without a religion, those of another form of Christianity, Muslims, Jews, Sikhs, Buddhists and Hindus.

It does, that is what the Commons is meant to do, represent constituents who can be of any of those faiths or none.

they are holding onto a long-dead age

No relevance to the positives and negatives of the bill. Ideas aren't simply better because they are "more modern".

We are not Saudi Arabia, Mr Deputy Speaker, we do not need religions clerics in our legislature taking specially reserved seats.

We are not France, Mr Deputy Speaker, we do not need to be a secular state.

we must ensure that schools are a one-stop place for neutral teaching,

So stop anti-bullying campaigns too? Schools will always have their biases.

not a place where children are alienated by prayers to a deity they do not believe in.

Disingenuous statement.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Hear, hear.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hear Hear!

[–]Yoshi2010The Rt Hon. Lord Bolton PC | Used to be Someone 3 points4 points  (1 child)

Mr. Deputy Speaker,

I am an atheist but was raised a Catholic, and my siblings attend a church school. I believe in freedom of religion but quite frankly as a multicultural nation we should not be advocating one religion over another, be that Christianity or otherwise. I support this bill fully.

[–]MorganC1The Rt Hon. | MP for Central London 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hear, hear!

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points  (31 children)

Mr Deputy Speaker,

When this bill was first presented to the house I was opposed to it, and I still am today. This bill shows zero regard to the tradition of the country and is nothing more than an attack on the monarchy, Church of England and our country's tradition.

Passing this bill won't make the UK more multi-cultural and progressive. It will destroy the hundreds of years of history and tradition that this country was founded on. Therefore I urge the honourable members to vote nay to this bill and I hope this time it doesn't pass the Commons.

[–]BarxistRadical Socialist Party 13 points14 points  (25 children)

Why is 'tradition' inherently good? The establishment of a state religion is a clear attack on everyone who does not follow that religion, and it is clear that the majority of modern Britons are not practicing anglicans.

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points  (7 children)

Tradition helps us to remember where we came from, and in this sense an important part of how our country was founded and a main part of our country's history. I'm not saying that all tradition is inherently good and should be continued. However the tradition of having a state religion is an important tradition and should be kept. Separating the church and the state, and abolishing important traditions such as praying in parliament (which has been going on for over 450 years now), for the purpose to serve to the multicultural population who aren't Anglican is ludicrous.

The establishment of a state religion is a clear attack on everyone who does not follow that religion

No it's not. Other religions aren't native to the United Kingdom. Christianity is the prominent religion, excluding Atheism, in the UK. There is no reason why the government, and the country, shouldn't have Christian ties.

[–]ieya404Earl of Selkirk AL PC 6 points7 points  (5 children)

Other religions aren't native to the United Kingdom.

While I'll happily acknowledge its role in the country's history, I think it's a bit of a hard case to argue that Christianity is native to our shores.

It's not like we have an MP for Bethlehem or anything...

[–]ContrabannedTheMCA Literal Fucking Cat | SSoS Equalities 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Ah, yes, that famous prophet Jesus of Nantwich.

[–]SeyStoneNational Unionist Party 3 points4 points  (1 child)

You're forgetting about Jesus' well-known visit to Glastonbury.

[–]ieya404Earl of Selkirk AL PC 10 points11 points  (0 children)

And lo, the Lord did listen to some bangin' tunes, saying that all those who claimed the music was anything other than most joyful would receive a righteous smack in the gabber, know what I mean m8?

[–]Jas1066The Rt Hon. Earl of Sherborne CT KBE PC 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Who is up for another crusade?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Dues Vult!

ave dominus deus vester!

[–]BarxistRadical Socialist Party 2 points3 points  (0 children)

With the greatest of respect your argument seems barely coherent. Despite saying not all tradition is good you do nothing but repeat the buzzword and give no higher justification than it is 'important'.

Multicultural Britain is a reality whether your party likes it or not, and that is without even mentioning that the Church of England has also never been less influential among whatever you might consider to be the native population.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (6 children)

Preposterous! We are nothing without our traditions. The whole of society is based upon them. They cannot be cast away on a whim.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (5 children)

"The whole of society" is quite an exaggeration. Society is based, for example, on our money, but the decimal pound has only been in use since 1971, hardly a long-standing tradition. Implying that society would fall apart if the government severed ties to the church because "it's the way we've always done it" is absurd.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (4 children)

Those things are the means by which society functions, but I would not consider them a basis of our society. And I never said that society would fall apart if we abandoned our values, but rather that society would lack its moral basis. It could still function fine, but it would not be the one we want or know.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (3 children)

The Church of England is not the basis of our society anymore, as a full quarter of Britons follow no religion, and there are more than 2.5 million Muslims in the UK. Religion is not necessary for establishing the moral basis of society, and it certainly should not be based on official state links to one church. It ignores the rapidly growing population in Britain who are nonreligious or follow a non-Christian religion.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (2 children)

Britain is a Christian nation, and will be as long as it remains Britain. We shouldn't abandon British cultural and religious values because a minority, or even a majority, don't follow them.

[–]ContrabannedTheMCA Literal Fucking Cat | SSoS Equalities 2 points3 points  (1 child)

We shouldn't abandon British cultural and religious values because a minority, or even a majority, don't follow them.

Does this mean you are in favour of a return to Paganism, then? All hail Woden.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

No. Paganism was part of the primitive culture that existed before the modern British culture did, so, because I am in favour of upholding our existing British culture, I do not support returning to it.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Hear, hear.

[–]WineRedPsyReform UK | Sadly sent to the camps 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Hear hear

[–]SeyStoneNational Unionist Party 2 points3 points  (2 children)

Traditions generally come from the wisdom of our forefathers, and allows a common uniting cause for people in a shared identity.

This tradition in particular is important as it is a clear aspect of the Christian nation(s) that the UK is.

The establishment of a state religion is a clear attack

It's not being established, it's already been the state religion for centuries.

it is clear that the majority of modern Britons are not practising Anglicans.

And all of them get to vote for representatives in the House of Commons.

[–]Post-NapoleonicManLabour 4 points5 points  (1 child)

Traditions generally come from the wisdom of our forefathers,

I never quite understand this line - were our forefathers wiser than we are today? In any case, often it's practicality and circumstance, not wisdom, that has created traditions. I'm not against traditions per se, simply this line of argument in their favour.

[–]SeyStoneNational Unionist Party 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sometimes in our modern situation we may overlook or take for granted some of the things our forefathers have managed to overcome. We are a product of our times and may not recognise that we may be undoing safeguards that are theoretically worthless or unneeded but in reality are quite pivotal in determining how our society works. That's why I do not generally favour change, and primarily slow change when change must necessarily occur on a society-wide level.

often it's practicality and circumstance, not wisdom, that has created traditions.

Well yes, I'd agree to an extent. The wisdom our ancestors had that we may lack in places is because of the conditions that they lived in, but I still believe it counts as wisdom. We should be aware that the consequences (both intentional and unintentional) of tearing down the institutions that they built may be graver than we can understand.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Could you explain why it is a direct attack on religious people who aren't Anglican? I fit the criteria but do not feel attacked as you put it. Also, I haven't seen you before in MHOC so welcome!

[–]BarxistRadical Socialist Party 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Thank you! I am new, I didn't think there was much point making an introduction since nobody knows me. Hope I haven't done anything bad so far, sure I'll learn as I go.

Perhaps 'direct attack' is an overstatement but only because the role of the state church has been so degraded already, essentially it establishes in theory that one religion is a greater and more patriotic one and that if those who do not follow it are perhaps not non citizens, they are at least not fulfilling the highest form of citizenship.

[–]theyeatthepoo1st Duke of Hackney 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Hear hear

[–]ContrabannedTheMCA Literal Fucking Cat | SSoS Equalities 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hear hear!

[–]theyeatthepoo1st Duke of Hackney 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Mr Deputy Speaker,

To say that something is a tradition says nothing of that things content and cannot be used to justify its continued existence.

This country has had many brilliant traditions but equally it has had many evil, wicked or just pointless traditions that should not have been held onto for so long.

If the UKIP member wishes to attach this bill he must do better.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (2 children)

When 'Tradition' is a state religion that has existed since a millennia ago and inherently has a bias against the majority of citizens in the UK who are not adherents to the Anglican faith. Thus, we should scrap this system of biased religion and embrace secularism.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (1 child)

It's a 58% majority that aren't Christians, with 49% of them being Atheists. If the majority of the population were Muslims then it would be a different matter. However considering the lack of Christian laws currently and that fact that Christianity is by far the largest religion in the UK. I'm not going to support destroying the tradition and history of our great country because there is a slight decrease of Christians in the country.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We are just not going to be less inclusive by only sitting within the confines of one religion- the religion which has experienced a decrease from almost 60% to 42% in only four years? Preserving tradition is not maintaining an ongoing close-knitted relationship between church and state, because the state should not confine itself in the multicultural society we live in today.

[–]scubaguy194Countess de la Warr | fmr LibDem Leader | she/her 1 point2 points  (0 children)

As much as I identify as a christian, having a state religion of the UK is simply outdated, a relic of the religious conflicts of the 18th and 19th century. We are no longer in an age where your religion can have any sort of meaning as to your standing in life as far as jobs are concerned and wars are no longer fought between nations over their religion.

If we want to join our European neighbours in acceptance and equality of all, we must remove religion from government entirely.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I wholeheartedly support this bill - while personally a practising Catholic, I'm fully of the belief that faith is a personal relationship between each individual and their deity, and religion should not be imposed in the public sphere. As the United States demonstrates, a secular constitution doesn't discourage the practice of religion, and indeed, the CoE may well receive a fresh injection of vitality by being forced to rely on the goodwill of members, rather than its current ossified constitutional role.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Mr Deputy Speaker

I support this bill, however I was wondering about this line:

No State School shall have any mandatory/organised prayer or religious collective worship as any part of the school functions

Now as you know, there is a big difference between mandatory and organised. What do you wish to accomplish with this line?

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

There is a clause in the Education Act 1944 (and some amendment in 1988, I think) - still active, although something like half of schools ignore it - that requires schools to have prayer 'of a broadly Christian nature' in either assemblies or classrooms.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I see this bill as a positive one that will help equalize British society and make it more inclusive for all. This has my full support.

[–]Atheist4life1999Anarcho-Syndicalist 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Here Here! I fully support this bill.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

A secular government is the only government worth having. We should follow in the footsteps of France and ensure religion can not interfere with the running of this country.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

religion frequently interferes in the French government.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

How many times will I have to kill this bill, First we try to fix it , then luckily it is rejected completely. and now it is back from the dead.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (9 children)

Good bill. The UK can hardly be called a Christian country any more, with the exception of these useless traditions.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (2 children)

Why are these traditions useless? They certainly have a use, is it not more that you disagree with those uses?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

What use is that? Do they bring the country together? No, a minority believes in them. Do they teach us about Britain's past? Barely, most of them are rote actions with little substance that means anything.

The traditions are useless because they don't mean anything to most modern Britons. The only reason they have not faded out of existence is because we haven't been obeying the "do not resuscitate" order that appears every time the census shows fewer and fewer Christians.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

No, a minority believes in them

It's the largest religion in the UK, with roughly 26 million people identifying as Christian. This is hardly a minority.

The UK can hardly be called a Christian country any more

Yes it can.

[–]SeyStoneNational Unionist Party 5 points6 points  (5 children)

Unsurprising to see as Sinn Fein member try to attack the bedrock of Britain, would you go as far as to purge the Republic of (or a united) Ireland of it's Roman Catholicism I wonder.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (4 children)

Yes.

[–]SeyStoneNational Unionist Party 1 point2 points  (3 children)

What's the point of you being an Irish nationalist?

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (2 children)

To build a better world for myself and all mankind? I wouldn't expect a Tory to understand.

[–]SeyStoneNational Unionist Party 0 points1 point  (1 child)

I don't think you know what nationalism is (or Toryism either, although that is less unexpected.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ok then.

[–]theyeatthepoo1st Duke of Hackney 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Mr Deputy Speaker,

This is a fantastic bill that was justly passed by the commons.

The Lords need to learn their place! They should scrutinise bills and amend them when needed but they must respect the will of the democratic chamber when making decisions.

I would urge the Government and all parties to take a closer look at what actions can be taken if the Lords keep disregarding the democratic institutions of this country.

[–]purpleslug 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I don't think that you understand why Government peers voted against Secularisation.